OBJECTIVE: To analyze phenotypic classification and other risk factors for interval breast cancer, focusing on true interval and false negative cancers. METHODS: A nested case-control study was performed among 115 cancers detected between two screening mammograms (interval cancers) and 115 screen-detected cancers diagnosed between 1995 and 2008 in a population-based breast cancer screening program in Barcelona (Spain). Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare patient and tumor molecular characteristics among all interval cancers, true intervals and false negatives, and screen-detected cancers. RESULTS: A total of 42.5% of interval cancers were true interval tumors and 16.2% were false negatives. High breast density and triple negative phenotype were more frequent in true interval cancers than in screen-detected cancers (57.6 and 34.1%, respectively for breast density, p = 0.023; 28.1 and 7.5%, respectively for triple negative phenotype, p = 0.028), while no statistically significant differences were observed between false negatives and screen-detected cancers. The main adjusted factors associated with true interval cancers compared with screen-detected cancers were high breast density and triple negative phenotype (OR = 3.1, 95% CI, 1.03-9.24 and OR = 8.9, 95% CI, 2.03-38.62, respectively). CONCLUSION: A more aggressive molecular phenotype and high breast density were identified in breast tumors that truly arise in the interval between screenings.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze phenotypic classification and other risk factors for interval breast cancer, focusing on true interval and false negative cancers. METHODS: A nested case-control study was performed among 115 cancers detected between two screening mammograms (interval cancers) and 115 screen-detected cancers diagnosed between 1995 and 2008 in a population-based breast cancer screening program in Barcelona (Spain). Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare patient and tumor molecular characteristics among all interval cancers, true intervals and false negatives, and screen-detected cancers. RESULTS: A total of 42.5% of interval cancers were true interval tumors and 16.2% were false negatives. High breast density and triple negative phenotype were more frequent in true interval cancers than in screen-detected cancers (57.6 and 34.1%, respectively for breast density, p = 0.023; 28.1 and 7.5%, respectively for triple negative phenotype, p = 0.028), while no statistically significant differences were observed between false negatives and screen-detected cancers. The main adjusted factors associated with true interval cancers compared with screen-detected cancers were high breast density and triple negative phenotype (OR = 3.1, 95% CI, 1.03-9.24 and OR = 8.9, 95% CI, 2.03-38.62, respectively). CONCLUSION: A more aggressive molecular phenotype and high breast density were identified in breast tumors that truly arise in the interval between screenings.
Authors: Melissa Pilewskie; Emily C Zabor; Elizabeth Gilbert; Michelle Stempel; Oriana Petruolo; Debra Mangino; Mark Robson; Maxine S Jochelson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Mia M Gaudet; Emily Deubler; W Ryan Diver; Samantha Puvanesarajah; Alpa V Patel; Ted Gansler; Mark E Sherman; Susan M Gapstur Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jan T Lowery; Tim Byers; John Kittelson; John E Hokanson; Judy Mouchawar; John Lewin; Dan Merrick; Lisa Hines; Meenakshi Singh Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Bettina Braun; Laura Khil; Joke Tio; Barbara Krause-Bergmann; Andrea Fuhs; Oliver Heidinger; Hans-Werner Hense Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: A Caldarella; D Puliti; E Crocetti; S Bianchi; V Vezzosi; P Apicella; M Biancalani; A Giannini; C Urso; F Zolfanelli; E Paci Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2012-09-09 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Rob van Bommel; Adri C Voogd; Marieke W Louwman; Luc J Strobbe; Dick Venderink; Lucien E M Duijm Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lusine Yaghjyan; Graham A Colditz; Bernard Rosner; Rulla M Tamimi Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Laia Domingo; Dolores Salas; Raquel Zubizarreta; Marisa Baré; Garbiñe Sarriugarte; Teresa Barata; Josefa Ibáñez; Jordi Blanch; Montserrat Puig-Vives; Ana Fernández; Xavier Castells; Maria Sala Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2014-01-10 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Ester Vilaprinyo; Carles Forné; Misericordia Carles; Maria Sala; Roger Pla; Xavier Castells; Laia Domingo; Montserrat Rue Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 3.240